9. I read it, now I'm asking you

I'm asking for one example. Just one. If the answer is so glaringly apparent, as it seems you are suggesting, then surely you can provide just one example of how I benefit from rape. If you can't, then there is no proof of the statement.

14. ...or I may not have.

All means all. It doesn't mean the majority, or mostly, or potentially all. It means all. Furthermore my interests don't include just myself. I have a wife and daughter whose interests coincide with my own. So all of the things you mentioned, even if they were all good examples (and I'm not convinced they are), would work against me more than they work for me. Add to this you are now not talking about rape, you are talking about control of women which doesn't rely on rape. If all rape were to disappear tomorrow never to come back, the same groups who seek to control women would still seek to control women, and there's nothing I can see that would suggest they would be able to do so any less effectively.

33. So if women are to threated to fully participate in society and "entry into school"

is a male advantage then I think the statistical evidence would support this theory. However we all know what the number look like when it comes to young women and young men and access to higher education in America.

25. If i were, say, a fundamentalist deeply invested in religious/cultural norms, that might apply.

However, what I see here is traditionalists and fundamentalists expressing their anger at/fear of change. The repressive, censorious impulse, the fear of sex, nudity, women's sexuality, all of it.. Centuries of sexual repression which run up against our modern, free (distressingly so, to fundamentalists and other censorship-minded traditionalists) media-rich environment. The people who believe in burqas versus the people who don't have a problem with porn on cable tv.

While undoubtedly women are the primary target of that anger and fear in the examples listed, I don't think a Rock-solid case can be made that "men" or "all men" somehow "benefit" from this intimidation. I think many men, as well as women, are invested in social change, progress, freedom and free thought.

It is the monolithic, categorical, black and white reasoning which I think many of us have a problem with. I do not believe that all men or even men as a category benefit from these horrible actions.

12. Men who rape have led to a culture of fear

That forces other men to question themselves constantly.

It can be little things, to big things.

A little thing....I worked in a quasi law enforcement job for a time. During my time there, it was unspoken policy never to be in a situation where a male would transport a young woman alone. I would always call for a female officer to make the transport, or try to get multiple people, officers or civilians, involved.

That was out of respect to the young women and their comfort. But it was also subservience to the fact that evil men have created a culture of fear of other men.

19. Well said! nt

17. I don't believe that categories are monolithic entitites.

I think that in some societies rape (like parts of India) can be a violent, hateful reaction to societal change- and part of that societal change involves women who challenge the roles which have been foisted upon them via traditional, usually fundamentalist religious routes.

So who "benefits"? Well, as someone else put it, no one does. No one benefits from violence or hate. It's a less than zero sum equation. But who is the intended recipient of the "benefit"? Is it men? All men? Men as a class? I don't know. I think reactionary violence benefits reactionaries, religious fundamentalist violence benefits religious fundamentalists. Violence against people who represent change benefits those who are afraid of that change.

That is not "men", or "all men" or "men as a class". Look at the horrible incident in India. There were two victims; the woman and her boyfriend, who was also brutally attacked. Did he "benefit"? I mean, he's a man.

I also think, within the context of discussions about this country or whether or not classes of people are "benefitting" from crimes like rape- and again, I don't think they are- it is always helpful to recognize the undeniable fact that, although horrible crimes like Steubensville DO occur, rape has statistically declined a significant amount in the past 3 decades. This is according to the US Dept. of Justice; according to them, incidence of rape is down approx. 30% from the peak in 1980.

23. The boyfriend is also being attacked by the defense lawyer

He said the two victims should not have been travelling on public transit late in the evening, and the man who was beaten had failed to shield his female companion from harm.

"The man has broken the faith of the woman," Sharma told the news service. "If a man fails to protect the woman, or she has a single doubt about his failure to protect her, the woman will never go with that man."

26. The reverse is true.

All men suffer from the stereotypes created by those who rape and abuse.

Boys obtain poor educations primarily because they have no teachers they can connect with in the formative primary grades. Males who would be well-suited for teaching are discouraged from taking those jobs a) because they can't get into or complete college and b) because of suspicion about their motives - so they go into engineering instead.

27. Rhetorical nonsense.

No men benefit from the fact that some men rape. If there is a benefit being asserted, then someone will have to explain to me what specifically that is and make its case before I'd even begin the process of trying to take it seriously.

28. Ignorant and bigoted.

All men benefit from anti-female sexism, whether we are a part of that system/actions or not. But the idea we, as men, all benefit from rape is bullshit and nothing more than bigotry directed toward men. Do women benefit from the rape of other men or is that yet another...oh noes, only MEN benefit?

29. I even think the assertion that "all men benefit from anti-female sexism", while situationally true

in some, maybe even most cases, is by no means a universal slam-dunk.

I'd add that I do think men have (obviously) enjoyed unfair advantages in many aspects of our society- although I believe this is less than it used to be. And sexism was a part of this. When all-or-most women were kept out of the workforce, for instance, it made it easier for men (generally) to get jobs. Etc.

But let's say I'm a stay at home dad whose wife is the primary breadwinner. How do I 'benefit' from her facing discrimination, lower pay, or other gender-related obstacles? I don't.

Oftentimes, men and women are on the same team. This idea that it's "all the men" versus "all the women"; I don't know who thinks the world works that way, or that things are really that divided.

Obviously some people are deeply invested in their fantasy of a pervasive gender conflict, and some peoples' agenda seems to involve pathologizing all men or painting all men as "the enemy". I do think Brownmiller was coming from this place.

30. It may not be universal, but it makes more sense then the crap in the OP.

Any form of institutionalized bigotry benefits those whom aren't the victims, but it can also victimize them too. Take homophobia as an example. Heterosexuals undoubtedly benefit from it in many ways, but it also hurts them. How many men can't be close friends with other men because of fear of they will be called "gay?" How many men squelch creativity because "it's kinda fruity?" But, they benefit by obvious ways, such as people participating in their weddings or celebrating them, setting them up on dates, having their marriages legally recognized, etc.

I never bought into the "all" either, just used it is a more appropriate example. I don't think "all" of either group is the enemy nor my friend, but I do recognize hate-mongering when I see it.

31. "All men benefit from anti-female sexism"

I don't think even that is true. There are 58,272 names on the Vietnam Memorial wall. 8 of those names are women.

By my math, 29,128 men died in Vietnam because of a sexist presumption that women are unfit for combat. Further, 1.5 times as many men as women are homeless. There may very well be a sexist presumption that men need less help than women, but it is hard to argue that this qualifies as a benefit.